If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It is pretty damn near impossible to take a particular stance on this issue, without people lumping all kinds of other baggage on top of you, assuming other things as well. If you agree with AGW (anthropogenic global warming, man-made) you get branded a socialist. If you disagree with AGW you are a brainless ditto head.

But lets prove each other wrong... so here is my take:

Humans contribute significantly to GW.

I do not endorse extreme environmentalists

I do not endorse the Bush administrations transparent corporatist anti-environmentalist policies.

We need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, discover clean energy for a number of reasons, AGW among them.

Government intervention into climate change will probably help, but it must be within our guiding principles.. not socialism in disguise.

AGW is a well supported scientific theory, even if some go beyond the science and use it to further an unrelated agenda.

Accepting AGW as likely does not commit you to any of those agendas.

AGW deniers are fueled by a hefty amount of disinformation. Look no further than this thread for some firsthand evidence. Obviously false canards that get trotted out, refuted then trotted out again.

If AGW is true, the US needs to do something NOW to develop clean and cheaper energy, or as the rest of the world starts to industrialize, it will start to dwarf the US contributions to AGW.

Global warming denial is part of a larger, extremely disturbing trend: the right wing war on science and any form of intellectualism. Partly fueled by conflicts with religion.

I do not endorse extreme environmentalists. You're a liberal.All extreme enviros are leftists.

I do not endorse the Bush administrations transparent corporatist anti-environmentalist policies...and?

We need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, discover clean energy for a number of reasons, AGW among them. AGW is a lie.The rest, yes

Government intervention into climate change will probably help, but it must be within our guiding principles.. not socialism in disguise. The most dangerous phrase in the world is "I am from the government and I am here to help" - Reagan

AGW is a well supported scientific theory, even if some go beyond the science and use it to further an unrelated agenda. Horseshit. That's the meme being pushed, not the truth. The truth is that AGW is an unproven theory, there is no "consensus" and a lot of natural phenomena are being put down to "global warming".There is warming on Mars. Oh wait....

Accepting AGW as likely does not commit you to any of those agendas. Wrong.

AGW deniers are fueled by a hefty amount of disinformation. Ah i see....so now we are "ignorant" Look no further than this thread for some firsthand evidence. Obviously false canards that get trotted out, refuted then trotted out again.

If AGW is true, the US needs to do something NOW to develop clean and cheaper energy, or as the rest of the world starts to industrialize, it will start to dwarf the US contributions to AGW. Yes.IF. a huge , massive IF.

Global warming denial is part of a larger, extremely disturbing trend. The right is engaged in a war on science, partly fueled by conflicts with religion. Ordinary people who are neither right nor left tend to keep their own counsel, do not like it or appreciate it when leftists try to squelch debate in favour of "consensus" and NO ONE makes up my mind for me. If you want me to listen to you, it might help to a/ treat me as if I had a mind of my own AND AS AN EQUAL , b/ I am not some kind of religious nut, religion has jack shit to do with this and c / this whole "they are stupid so we must educate them" comes from the Hillary Clinton playbook. "It takes a village"

I am asked if I "believe " in AGW.

No I dont..I also dont believe in the Sasquatch, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and fairies at the bottom of the garden.
If you are asked to "believe" then its a religion, not science.

I do a job that is far more complex than you can imagine, deal with the law and its issues every day, handle complex issues both on a technical and personal basis every day, and do NOT take kindly to being belittled, denigrated, patronised as an "uneducated fool" simply because after making up my own mind, being an educated, highly intelligent adult, I don't buy into your fucking Chicken Little Doomsday scenario.

No I dont..I also dont believe in the Sasquatch, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and fairies at the bottom of the garden.
If you are asked to "believe" then its a religion, not science.

Its a matter of convention. Obviously a mistake on someones part to assume you have the smarts to discern the difference between accepting a faith based proposition and accepting a scientific theory as probable based on common usages of the word 'belief'. I think you do have the smarts though.. your just being intellectually dishonest.

And besides, if it were religion, wouldnt that give it some special constitutional protections? I don't think you want that do you? ;)

I do a job that is far more complex than you can imagine, deal with the law and its issues every day, handle complex issues both on a technical and personal basis every day, and do NOT take kindly to being belittled, denigrated, patronised as an "uneducated fool" simply because after making up my own mind, being an educated, highly intelligent adult, I don't buy into your fucking Chicken Little Doomsday scenario.

Does THAT answer your question?

Good grief. You get insulted and belittled because you cast the first stones you tool. You do what you accuse me of more than any other person on this board.

We can find plenty of smart people that believe any number of dumb things. In fact, your whole position that AGW is a myth is based on that idea. So forgive me if I think it plausible that you of all people have your facts wrong... I am not a scientist, but a fairly well read for a lay person.. From what I can tell, it doesnt look like you can say the same.

No. Science is precision and fact.If you cannot mean what you say, then you cannot say what you mean.

"Believe" is not science and it is not convention.

Obviously a mistake on someones part to assume you have the smarts to discern the difference between accepting a faith based proposition and accepting a scientific theory as probable based on common usages of the word 'belief'.

Ah I see...belittling me again and calling me "ignorant". What's next...telling me that I am a Holocaust denier as well?

You expect me to be more receptive, or less? Treating me like a fool is not the way to get my attention.

I think you do have the smarts though.. your just being intellectually dishonest.

Language is as precise a tool as is any scientific instrument. Use it wisely.

And besides, if it were religion, wouldnt that give it some special constitutional protections? I don't think you want that do you? ;)

No, because I am an Australian we dont worry about your Constitution, because it means jack shit outside your borders.

Good grief. You get insulted and belittled because you cast the first stones you tool. You do what you accuse me of more than any other person on this board.

Read back over your own comments, and tell me just how patronising you sound. How many times is it now you've called me stupid because I wont fall into line?

I dont walk in lockstep with ANYONE. Hasnt that percolated through that thick skull of yours yet?

We can find plenty of smart people that believe any number of dumb things

Like AGW
.

In fact, your whole position that AGW is a myth is based on that idea.

It is based on my own reading and study,. which leads me to the conclusion it is a lie.

So forgive me if I think it plausible that you of all people have your facts wrong.

That is an opinion. Yours. You are welcome to it.

I am not a scientist, but a fairly well read for a lay person.. From what I can tell, it doesnt look like you can say the same.

I am a fully qualified and licensed commercial agent, with at least three certifications over five years, I have at least two other trade qualifications and the experience to back it up, fifteen years or so in the emergency services, have a massive library and am the son of a noted poet and writer.

You started this thread with the title Global Warming Assumptions.

Here's a tip. When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.

Here's another piece of friendly advice. Don't talk down to people. All you do in the process is prove what a smug, superior prat you can be.

No. Science is precision and fact.If you cannot mean what you say, then you cannot say what you mean.

"Believe" is not science and it is not convention.

Its the English language. Because some people use imprecise language in every day conversation and debate doesn't make your conclusion that global warming is a religion sound. A flippant condescending response is the only response this type of argument deserves frankly. It's a little tired having to explain something that should be obvious to a fourth grader, over and over again.

The deniars have largely done the same. Unfortunately, I don't think many read most of that post, they just don't immediately hear the words "Global warming is a lie!" and start throwing around the accusations and meme's.

Ah I see...belittling me again and calling me "ignorant". What's next...telling me that I am a Holocaust denier as well?

Stubbornly hinging your argument on an obvious inconsequential technicality deserves nothing less. If you want to argue that many have elevated environmentalism and AGW to a level of religiosity I wont disagree. I would also add the AGW contrarians have done the same. If you want to say the science behind climatology and AGW is religion, you need an actual argument. The world belief as used commonly does not do it. If some left wing extreme enviro-religionists and some opportunistic socialists try to drum up hysteria over AGW doesn't invalidate the science behind it all.

You expect me to be more receptive, or less? Treating me like a fool is not the way to get my attention.

Language is as precise a tool as is any scientific instrument. Use it wisely.

Read back over your own comments, and tell me just how patronising you sound. How many times is it now you've called me stupid because I wont fall into line?

I try very hard not to be, but I do return it in kind.

I am a fully qualified and licensed commercial agent, with at least three certifications over five years, I have at least two other trade qualifications and the experience to back it up, fifteen years or so in the emergency services, have a massive library and am the son of a noted poet and writer.

Thats great. Good for you.

You started this thread with the title Global Warming Assumptions.

Here's a tip. When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.

And as evidenced by your replies, you are still making them.

I am not a liberal, but I'm sure it makes it easier for you to be dismissive of whatever I say by automatically categorizing me as one. Accepting the plausibility of a well supported scientific theory does not make one a liberal. Not buying into social conservatism does not make one a liberal.
I do not want to squelch debate in the name of consensus. However, there is a time when opposing arguments have been thoroughly refuted and they should be tabled.

Here's another piece of friendly advice. Don't talk down to people. All you do in the process is prove what a smug, superior prat you can be.

You know its funny in the 70's these same enviro whack jobs told us another ice age was just around the corner......well what happened JACK SHIT thats what happened.

Then come the 90's and all of the sudden its GW, same crap in a slick new package.
Every time there is a major climatic event ie a bad hurricane season they all point and say, see, see we told you so. then for the next few years nothing, barely a hard rain. during that time we herd nary a peep out of said nut jobs. Why?

Heard anything lately about the Ozone layer?....no, me either thats because it started to shrink.
Maybe these things are cyclic events.

Do I hate the planet? Of course not.
Do I want bad things to happen to people? Well maybe the libs. :)
I want clean air & water who doesn't? but a little rational thought would go a long ways on this issue.

The wack jobs have managed to tie researchers funds to their support of their cockamamie ideas and it seems to have be successful, for a time but it appears as though the worm is starting to turn yet again.
So what do they do. They repackage it again and call it Climate Change.

I'm of the opinion that this planet can shake us off any time she wants, like a dog with a bad case of fleas.

You know its funny in the 70's these same enviro whack jobs told us another ice age was just around the corner......well what happened JACK SHIT thats what happened.

I don't know what "enviro whackjobs" were doing in the 1970s but there is no evidence that scientists during that decade predicted an ice age approaching. But don't take my word for anything. Try finding peer reviewed scientific studies from the 1970s predicting an ice age. You won't find them because they don't exist.

Regarding the crazies in the 70’s and their statements about what might happen: Human Nature, people. The same was said about the 17 m.p.h. break-neck speed of the first passenger train, where it was said that "The air will surely be sucked from ones lungs if it were to go any faster."

Just compare a calculator of the 70’s to something you can buy at Wal-Mart for $5.00 today. That will give you some clue as to where technology is taking our data mining capability.

At Coretta Scott King's funeral in early 2006, Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert Kennedy, leaned over to him and whispered, "The torch is being passed to you." "A chill went up my spine," Obama told an aide. (Newsweek)

I don't know what "enviro whackjobs" were doing in the 1970s but there is no evidence that scientists during that decade predicted an ice age approaching. But don't take my word for anything. Try finding peer reviewed scientific studies from the 1970s predicting an ice age. You won't find them because they don't exist.

No, they were predicting either the oil to run and we were in a lot of trouble or there would be overpopulation and we'd be in a lot of trouble. (lot of trouble = end of world as we know it)